Trans Tyranny and the End of Self-ID

It ain't over till it's over, of course... but it looks like Self-ID for transgender identifying persons is done. At least in the USA and Britain. For now.

We just last week learned that the Trump administration has ended Obama's "guidance" that effectively re-defined sex-based rights and protections for "gender identity" in healthcare:

The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. That federal law established that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities." In 2016, an Obama-era rule explained that protections regarding "sex" encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female."

In June 2019, under Trump, the HHS Office for Civil Rights proposed a rule (the one finalized this week) that reverses the one from the Obama administration.

Severino said at the time, "We're going back to the plain meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex."

Transge nder Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration

Despite the fearmongering to the contrary, this does not mean that transgender persons cannot receive healthcare. It does mean that healthcare providers are not required to provide services for "changing" gender. So, for example, a physician would not be required to prescribe cross-sex hormones, or -- worse! -- perform a double mastectomy on a 13-year-old girl because she "identifies" as a boy. I would imagine there has been a collective sigh of relief from the medical community. I certainly would not want to be put in the position of treating someone who requires me to play make believe when it comes to biological functions and realities. That's a sure recipe for disaster.

The healthcare reversal is just the beginning. It seems they will continue rolling back the protections for women's single-sex spaces, starting with shelters and refuges:

Under HUD’s proposed new rule, details of which were obtained by The Washington Post, operators of single-sex shelters may consider someone’s biological sex — instead of how they self-identify — in making placement and accommodation decisions. They could “determine an individual’s sex based on a good faith belief that an individual seeking access … is not of the sex, as defined in the single sex facility’s policy, which the facility accommodates,” the proposed rule says.

HUD to change transgender rules for single-sex homeless shelters

Transgender identifying persons are not being excluded from ALL shelters and refuges; but a refuge/shelter can choose to be strictly sex-based. Other shelters/refuges can choose otherwise.

Likewise, maintaining the sex-based rights and protections of Title IX, the DOJ has weighed in on the lawsuit in Connecticut which would ban transgender identifying boys from participating in girl's sports.

The U.S. Justice Department is getting involved in a federal civil rights lawsuit that seeks to block transgender athletes in Connecticut from competing as girls in interscholastic sports.

Attorney General William Barr signed what is known as a statement of interest Tuesday, arguing against the policy of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, the board that oversees the state's high school athletic competitions.

Justice Department weighs in on Connecticut suit: Don't treat trans athletes as girls

I expect we'll be seeing more and more of these Federal regulations that conflate sex with "gender identity" being reversed... especially as we get closer to the election in November.

On the other side of the pond, in England, The Times of London is reporting that the government is preparing a report regarding the current efforts to make gender transition easier by removing virtually all safeguards and the need for medical/psychological diagnosis and replacing with "Self-ID". The Times is behind a paywall, but their report has been reported in the Guardian:

Boris Johnson is set to scrap plans to allow people to change their legal gender by “self-identifying” as male or female, it has been reported.

Measures drawn up under Theresa May’s government to enable transgender people to change their birth certificate without a medical diagnosis have been ditched by the prime minister’s team, according to the Sunday Times.

Trans rights: government reported to be dropping gender self-identifying plans

England's NHS has also significantly updated their guidance on puberty blockers for children:

The National Health Service in England has updated its policy on puberty blockers by removing the claim that the experimental drugs prescribed to transgender-identifying youth are "fully reversible." It now says it's unknown what the short-term and long-term effects will be on a person's bones, physical body and mental health.

The use of synthetic hormones to block the puberty processes of children experiencing gender dysphoria has faced increased scrutiny in recent years. And the changes made to the guidance come after a lawsuit was filed against the nation's sole gender clinic, the Tavistock and Portman National Health Service Trust in London, where an individual who underwent these experimental treatments says they caused irreparably harm to their body.

NHS removes trans guidance claim that puberty blockers are ‘fully reversible’

I would hope that the transgender community would accept these determinations, respect the sex-based rights and protections for others, and move forward in establishing their own rights and protections. But I expect some pushback, especially from BLM, which is beginning to champion the transgender tyranny, particularly for Black men who identify as women:

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

BLM: What We Believe

The protests for George Floyd are now including/changing to protests for Black men identifying as women:

The Black Trans Lives Matter rally in New York, one of many nationwide, came after two black trans women — Dominique “Rem’Mie” Fells, 27, of Philadelphia, and Riah Milton, 25, of Cincinnati, Ohio — were murdered last week.

Thousands show up for black trans people in nationwide protests

So, as I said already, it ain't over till it's over, but this is where we're at now -- NO self-ID!!! -- and it's good news.

a reply to: Boadicea

Totally agree with these measures. I am trans-minded for lack of a current terminology as I don't play in the totally PC world, nor can I follow it's endless changes. My mind is male but I have a female body. Even now in my fifties the body is alien to me but it is what it is. Perhaps I have been blessed to have the ability to just deal, that and I have bigger issues

I know of one example of a young girl who completely identified as a boy growing up because boys, to her mind, got to do more "fun stuff". To any half observant girl, boys also enjoy an amount of privilege just from being safe from being sexualized at an early age. So this girl went through puberty and developed into a complete girl, hook line and sinker... worked as a nanny because she loved kids, plans of marriage, kids, house are well on their way. She dresses as a conservative business woman while as a teen she looked like a messy skater boy. So my point is, she could have been seriously damaged by transition on a whim. I was denied a tubal ligation in my late teens in case I wanted to have kids later and I did have kids in my early thirties, so I can hardly imagine the dilemma doctors face at a teen wanting to transition. Must be an awful position to be put in.

And a good move to allow shelters for biological females only especially for victims of sexual violence, but trans women do need their own shelters too. Both types should be flexible in emergencies though.

Same with sports... trans women, especially those who transition late and develop some male muscle, put biological women into a situation where they can rarely be competitive and gee, that looks a lot like back in the old days where women were not able to compete, or able to win, won't be funded, etc. Again, separate categories needed.

Thanks for posting, this is good news to me.

It's about time some sanity prevails.

a reply to: Plotus

Too bad SCOTUS threw a monkey wrench into the plans! I don't see any of these new rules ever going into effect, based on this morning's ruling, Title VII forbids such discrimination.

Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

[I]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

reason.com...

originally posted by: igloo
a reply to: Boadicea

Totally agree with these measures. I am trans-minded for lack of a current terminology as I don't play in the totally PC world, nor can I follow it's endless changes.

"Trans-minded" -- That's an interesting -- and dare I say positive? -- way to phrase it. I like it. I have no use for dictated gender roles, and I think we can all use some gender bending. I firmly support sex-based rights and protections, because, well, sexed bodies are what they are, have their own needs and functions, and need to be understood and treated accordingly. But when it comes to gender roles and norms and all that rot, I'm happy to let people do as they please.

My mind is male but I have a female body. Even now in my fifties the body is alien to me but it is what it is. Perhaps I have been blessed to have the ability to just deal, that and I have bigger issues

LOL! Not laughing at you, but more at myself. I've had to deal with so many "female" issues, I would lovelovelove to be able to self-identify out of this body!!! But I don't think I'd want to be a man either, so I don't know what I would self-identify as! That's probably much of the reason I'm happy to let others do them, and I'll just do me. In the final analysis, our sex is what it is... but we are what we make of ourselves.

I was denied a tubal ligation in my late teens in case I wanted to have kids later and I did have kids in my early thirties, so I can hardly imagine the dilemma doctors face at a teen wanting to transition. Must be an awful position to be put in.

Yes. Even disregarding personal philosophies and beliefs, the human body has very specific needs and functions determined by biological sex, that can only be properly addressed in their proper perspective. When cross-hormones and other medical procedures are introduced and create other conditions or cause side effects -- both known and unknown -- it's gotta be quite daunting and worrisome for the provider.

And a good move to allow shelters for biological females only especially for victims of sexual violence, but trans women do need their own shelters too. Both types should be flexible in emergencies though.

Same with sports... trans women, especially those who transition late and develop some male muscle, put biological women into a situation where they can rarely be competitive and gee, that looks a lot like back in the old days where women were not able to compete, or able to win, won't be funded, etc. Again, separate categories needed.

I agree. Third spaces and categories are the way to go. For safety and privacy purposes, there is a vital need for sex based shelters. But there is also a need for shelters open to transgender persons. Even ones specifically dedicated to transgender persons. In fact, I think it might be a good thing for transgender persons going through a crisis to find a safe space with people who know and understand their specific needs and circumstances.

I'm not sure if there is enough demand by transgender identifying athletes to create a viable third category for competition, but perhaps an open category that allows anyone and everyone would be an option.

Thanks for posting, this is good news to me.

You're welcome!

To be anything but exactly what you are is a ............ wait for it....... Contradiction..!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Too bad SCOTUS threw a monkey wrench into the plans! I don't see any of these new rules ever going into effect, based on this morning's ruling, Title VII forbids such discrimination.

Time will tell... but the Supreme Court decision you are looking at is not the same thing. The Supreme Court decision was addressing employment situations that required employees to express their sex according to the employer's standards. So, as one of the three cases looked at, an employer cannot demand that one sex must wear pants and the other sex must wear dresses/skirts. So when their transgender employee decided to transition and begin wearing dresses/skirts, the employer fired them for basically not performing their sex correctly. Not because they were transgender per se.

These reversals will no doubt be taken to court, but at that time the court will be asked to rule on whether sex-based rights can be re-defined (by Obama's pen and a phone) as gender identity rights. It will not be about someone (an employer) arbitrarily deciding what is acceptable for a man or a woman to wear or who they can have a relationship with -- which is subjective. But rather these decisions will have to be determined according to tangible and objective criteria, based upon specific needs and realities inherent to biological sex.

Very different issues.

originally posted by: Plotus
It's about time some sanity prevails.

I would say "reality" instead of "sanity", but it's about the same!

I honestly think it's a crying shame that transgender identifying persons have been encouraged to believe that living a lie is really living their "authentic" life. Whatever life they are living, they can only live as themselves. And that's okay. The body is what it is, but their life is what they make of it.

a reply to: Boadicea

The Supreme Court decision was addressing employment situations that required employees to express their sex according to the employer's standards.

The Supreme Court basically ruled that Title VII, the 1964 Civil RIghts Act, applied to LGBT people. Employment, health care, schools, housing, professional services, everything that Tittle VII Civil RIghts Act covers is covered in the ruling.

The Trump administration can't change the definition of "sex"

Severino said at the time, "We're going back to the plain meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex."

As Justice Gorsuch wrote:

Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
...
[I]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

SCOTUS Deep Sixed The Trump Administration's agenda to change the definition of sex and sex discrimination, which is the crux of their argument.

a reply to: Plotus
What about verified cases of sex chromosome abnormalities?

Some people have to live with those contradictions. Must have been terrible in the past when society had such strict sex roles.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

[I]t is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

Yes. Sex is a biological reality. And the Supreme Court is saying that you cannot discriminate against someone for not expressing their sex "correctly."

If it's okay for a woman to wear skirts and not be fired, then a man cannot be discriminated against for wearing skirts and being fired.

If it's okay for a woman to have a relationship with a man and not be fired, then a man cannot be discriminated against for having a relationship with a man by being fired.

In each instance, the employer was discriminating against an employee by firing them for doing something they would not have fired the opposite sex for doing. That is sexual discrimination. It is literally having a double standard for men and women.

That is a very different issue than re-defining sex to mean gender identity as opposed to a person's objective and tangible biological sex with inherent needs and conditions. A lawsuit would require a court to determine if those strictly sex-based rights and protections can be/should be re-defined as "gender identity", and would greatly depend on what the intentions of the legislators were at the time. In other words, were the legislators legislating strictly according to biology itself? How did those legislators define "man" and "woman" when writing the legislation?

originally posted by: igloo
a reply to: Plotus
What about verified cases of sex chromosome abnormalities?

Some people have to live with those contradictions. Must have been terrible in the past when society had such strict sex roles.

I've heard some real horror stories about people born intersex that have not ended well. It's really sad. And yet another good reason to smash some of society's gender stereotypes.

We are all a gloriously unique combination of male and female factors -- chromosomes, hormones, etc. Ultimately, we are a combination of nature -- what we're born with -- and nurture -- the environment we learn and grow in. We all have to deal with our physical realities -- both sex-based and just plain old human-based. For better AND worse.

But we can also celebrate the many other qualities and virtues that really define and describe who we are as individuals.

a reply to: Boadicea

That is a very different issue than re-defining sex to mean gender identity as opposed to a person's objective and tangible biological sex with inherent needs and conditions.

Like medical care? Title VII makes it illegal to discriminate based on a person's gender. That doesn't mean that a proctologist must suddenly perform a gynecologist's job. But, it does mean that a health care provider can't refuse to treat an LGBT individual person, based on their "sex" or gender identity.

It means if a foster child needs a home, they can't be denied shelter because of their LGBT status, nor can they force a self identified female into a "male" designated shelter. It means that schools can't discriminate against LGTB kids, forcing them to conform to some gender role.

It means anything that is covered in TItle VII also protects LGBT folks:

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Civil Rights Act of 1964".

www.eeoc.gov...

Trump's Commission on Civil Rights can't change a definition to deny LGBT people access to their civil rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump's Commission on Civil Rights can't change a definition to deny LGBT people access to their civil rights.

Big sigh.

The question will be if Obama can change a legally established definition (with his pen and a phone) to deny people their sex-based rights and protections. Remember, Obama's changes were not legislated by any proper authorities. Obama arbitrarily re-defined the meaning of "men" and "women."

The sex-based rights and protections are based upon clear unambiguous criteria, in accordance with the needs, functions and other realities of a specific type of physical body... not emotional or psychological feelings or ideals. A male bodied person does not have the same needs, functions and other realities of a female bodied person (and vice versa).

Therefore, any challenge would have to prove sex-based rights and protections ALSO apply to gender identity, AND that was the original intent of the legislators who drafted and passed the legislation.

a reply to: Boadicea

The question will be if Obama can change a legally established definition (with his pen and a phone) to deny people their sex-based rights and protections.

Bigger sigh...

The Obama Administration assumed the 1964 Civil Rights included LGBT folks in its declaration against discrimination based on sex. The Supreme Court just ruled that to be a true thing. The 1964 Civil Rights Act language is meant to include LGBT people under "sex" discrimination, according to SCOTUS.

In other words, SCOTUS ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, always included the protection of LGBT folks, just like the 2015 SCOTUS ruling said it was unconstitutional to forbid same sex marriage. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has always protected LGBT folks, like the Obama Administration always assumed the law to mean.

The Trump Administration's HHS Office for Civil Rights, created under the 1964 Civil RIghts Act, attempts to deny LGBT folks legal protection are a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, according to today's SCOTUS ruing.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Okay. We'll find out together.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump's Commission on Civil Rights can't change a definition to deny LGBT people access to their civil rights.

Big sigh.

The question will be if Obama can change a legally established definition (with his pen and a phone) to deny people their sex-based rights and protections. Remember, Obama's changes were not legislated by any proper authorities. Obama arbitrarily re-defined the meaning of "men" and "women."

The sex-based rights and protections are based upon clear unambiguous criteria, in accordance with the needs, functions and other realities of a specific type of physical body... not emotional or psychological feelings or ideals. A male bodied person does not have the same needs, functions and other realities of a female bodied person (and vice versa).

Therefore, any challenge would have to prove sex-based rights and protections ALSO apply to gender identity, AND that was the original intent of the legislators who drafted and passed the legislation.

Lmao awww😢 someones mad their recent thread condoning discrimination against a whole group of people didn't work out as planned?

Thankfully even the S.C's conservative judges sided with actual freedom.

a reply to: Jg513

Lmao awww😢 someones mad...

Oh dear... misinterpret much do ya?

Not mad. Just a little frustrated and weary of the same argument without even addressing the distinctions I'm making. If I were mad, it would be very clear. Not "big sigh." But more like "grrrrrrrr" or, actually, something much more verbose.

...their...

Please don't misgender me... my pronouns are Your Highness/Your Majesty/Your Almighty. Thanks. Much appreciated.

...recent thread condoning discrimination against a whole group of people didn't work out as planned?

Protecting sex-based rights and protections is not discrimination against anyone.

But it's very telling that being pro-women is "anti-trans," because then the opposite is necessarily true: Being pro-trans is by definition anti-women. Which is the problem. Transgender persons are trying to take someone else's rights and thus harming other people. If those same efforts were put into establishing their own rights and protections for their own specific needs and circumstances, they would find friends and allies in their current adversaries.

Thankfully even the S.C's conservative judges sided with actual freedom.

I agree with that decision. Employers should not have different arbitrary standards for their male and female employees. But it is a very different issue than self-id and sex-based rights.

originally posted by: igloo
a reply to: Plotus
What about verified cases of sex chromosome abnormalities?

They are called birth defects.

Be careful, maybe JK Rowling is watching.

That's on rich lady they'll never be able to cancel cause the kids like her